Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses

[TEPaul]

Mac:

For the architectural history of GCGC I'd use the Centennial History book of the club done by the excellent club history book writer Bill Quirin (Pat Mucci, who belongs to GCGC, actually gave it to me a bit over nine years ago).

I think it tracks the beginnings of the club and course from its nine hole beginning in 1897 by Devereux Emmet (and another club member, by the name of George Hubbell), to its alteration to 18 holes in 1899 by Emmet and Hubbell, to the tenure of Walter Travis's years long work on the golf course.

It would be nice to scan those pages from that book in here but I can't do that and I don't even know if the club itself would appreciate that at least not without providing its permission first.

There may be some questions and challenges about the details of the course's architectural history by some on here but I sure don't want to see this thread and your questions about it turn into another Merion type argument. I won't get involved in that on this thread and course and I know you won't either.

Pat's coming home today or tomorrow and he would be the one to help get this going for you, along with me or anyone else knowledgeable on GCGC's architectural history. There're also a couple of pretty detailed threads on GCGC's architectural history way back in the back pages of this website.

But it is certainly true to say GCGC is one of the most important ones in American Architectural history, along with Myopia and a few others, simply because it was so early for quality architecture in America.

[Mac Plumart]

Thanks Tom.

I'll reach out to Pat and see if I can buy a copy through him.

I'll also check out the past threads on this site.

[Mac Plumart]

Robin...

I just read a thread on Mach. Dunes and did some diggin elsewhere.  Oh man, it sounds excellent, unique, groundbreaking, etc.

I can't wait to give it a try!!!

Thanks,
Mac

[Robin Doodson]

Robin...

I am fascinated with Mach. Dunes.  You say self-sustaining.  Please excuse my ignorance, but could you please expound upon that?  I am of the belief that a course that is truly minimalist, needs to be minimalist in terms of upkeep and maintenance as well.  Could Mach. Dunes fit this bill.

Thanks,
Mac

Mac,

One of the most unique things about Machrihanish Dunes is that it is built on a Site of Special Scientific Interest so by law it has to fit the bill. Scottish Natural Heritage come on site 3 or 4 times per year to ensure that fairways aren't being cut below 20mm, rough isn't being mown and pesticides aren't  being sprayed outside of tees and greens. The way government regulators are going , in 20 years these sorts of restrictions are going to be the norm. it will change golf course conditioning dramatically especially in the US. Canada and some parts of Europe have already banned the use of pesticides i believe. Maintaining a golf course under these restrictions is definitely a challenge but it will just take a change in golfer expectation to appreciate what can be achieved on such a rustic site. i would be interested to know how GCA's would modify there style to deal with a pesticide free golf course? also playability would definitely change if you can't mow fairways below 20mm how would architects deal with this? Would some architects actually benefit from these sorts of challenges?

yours aye

robin

[Tony_Muldoon]

Pinehurst #2--first great resort course

I would go with Glenaeagles as an earlier option.  It was thought about before WW1, the course was built during the war and the Hotel afterwards.  It was (like Pinehurst?) developed by a Railway Company.  By 1919 it was open for business.


Mac It woul be interesting to see all these laid out in a timeline. Good Luck

PS  What was the first course designed to enhance a larger development?   Housing etc?  


What was the first Country Club GC?  I'd like some more info on this as the Country Club is not something I've experienced.  Also I understand some ealry US courses were part of Polo, Cricket or even Tennis developments, is the the Country Club ideal?


I will post a thread this winter on Thurlestone GC. As early as the 1890's there were ambitious plans for  a 'new town' with sports facitlities Cricket, Golf and Tennis.  Ultimately the Golf and Tennis were developed piecemeal, but the deveopment as planned didn't take place.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Sunningdale wasn't the first great heathland course, that was either Woking or Huntercombe. The significance of Sunningdale in my eyes is that it was the first course where

a) The site was cleared to make room for golf.
b) The course was grown from seeds.

Ulrich

Ulrick New Zealand GC was cleared of trees circa 1893,  grassing must have then taken place.

[Mac Plumart]

Tony...

I have been taking notes and creating a timeline as we go...I will share when it is complete.

Mac

[Tony_Muldoon]

Excellent thanks I look forward to seeing it.

[Steve Okula]

I nominate Kyle Philips et al splendid work at Kingsbarns, Scotland, the first manufactured links course.

Well into page 2 of this thread and no one has yet mentioned Pine Valley? Isn't that the first and last word on penal design? Also, it boasts an all-star ensemble cast of contributing architects.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Steve,

TEPaul mentioned Pine Valley back there somewhere, but it wasn't about the penal nature of the architecture. Wouldn't Oakmont be considered the first really penal course in the US ?

[Mac Plumart]

Oakmont has been referenced as the first/ulitimate in penal design.  I've got to say from my research is sounds like a true "ball-buster".  

Pine Valley...I've been wanting to ask about it.  Crump is the designer on record, right?  Steve, you mention all-star cast of contributors.  Can you elaborate?  Also, Pine Valley's primary characterisitcs take root in the courses penal nature, correct?

Kingbarns...very nice.  I happen to have the "scoop" on that course which was provided to me by one of the truly great researchers/writers that contributes regularly (or at least he used to) on this site.  For that, let me say "thanks"...the information is truly excellent.

Thanks!!!

[TEPaul]

Mac:

Oakmont was begun by the Fownses in 1903. Pine Valley was begun by Crump in 1913. Crump and W.C. Fownes (1910 US Amateur champion) were friends and Fownes was an early member of PV, as well as a central advisor on PV's architecture a few years after Crump died.

Depending on what one means by "penal" there is little question that both courses were architecturally contemplated to be extremely difficult; frankly that was a large part of the point of both of them. Back in that day there was a philosophy extant in a part of the world of American architecture to make some golf courses a lot harder simply to raise the caliber of the championship players of those regions.

Crump didn't even attempt to make a concession to the caliber of golfer who was not a good player with his Pine Valley. He actually joked that his course was not for them at all.

When we think about and talk about this whole equation of penal versus strategic golf and architecture we need to consider what some of those architects were designing their particular courses for! A few of them wanted extremely difficult courses that wasn't exactly supposed to be accommodating to weaker golfers and that in and of itself was pretty controversial, revolutionary and groundbreaking back then. It did not come without a certain amount of criticism from some sectors either, particularly from some critics abroad.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mac,
There surely was a lot of contribution to Crump's effort, although I don't thnk I mentioned anything about it, wrong guy.

There are others who know the story better than me. As far as it being primarily penal, I know guys who've played it that take exception to that idea, they say it's more 'strategic'.

I take a more simple view, my working definition of penal is when you force a player to hit balls over a feature/hazard rather than offering them a way around. A look at an aerial of the course shows many instances of that.

I assume it's more of one, some of the other.

[TEPaul]

Mac:

As far as Pine Valley being a collaborative architectural effort with contributions or recommendations and advice and opinions from numerous architects of the time, there is no question that it was, at least that seemed to be the perception Geo. Crump wanted to promote and did promote. I could make you a list which is pretty long and interesting of those that it has been said made some recommendations to Crump and Pine Valley.

The point though, or at least my point on that, is it very much seems like Crump did everythng possible to promote that idea and did nothing at all to discourage it. In that particular way Crump seemed to have been the opposite of proprietary about the architecture of PV. In actual fact, though, he just did what he wanted to do no matter who suggested what. He just did it without bothering to mention he was NOT taking someone's advice. Perhaps the best example of all in that vein was the trumpeted idea and iteration with PV by Travis to make the course reversible.

Crump actually encouraged Travis to create a reversible design and even promote it in American Golfer (Travis was its editor) along with drawings and descriptions. But eventually that idea was just quietly dropped by Crump and nothing like that was ever done with the course. I've got the drawings of the few holes Travis reversed on paper---they are actually pretty interesting in how he did it with the way those holes were and are designed.

You should also know that Geo. Crump did work and apparently planned to work on the design of that course in the mode of most all those famous so-called "amateur/sportsmen" architects (the ones who did not take money for what they did in architecture) in that he planned to take years and perhaps decades on its architectural development. There is that famous story around the club when members and others would ask him when his course would have all eighteen holes open for play or at least when the course would finally be finished and according to what was written or said by those closest to him he would bellow, "NEVER!!"

Another interesting aspect of Crump and PV is that in 1917 he bought approximately 400 more acres contiguous to the original 186 acres and when asked why he did that he said that when he completed the course he was going to design and build another championship-test type course along side it JUST FOR WOMEN!! He had already begun to interview star amateur Alexa Stirling for her architectural advice for that purpose. That is pretty ironic because as you may or may not know, Pine Valley is and always has been a male only golf club!!  

[Mac Plumart]

Tom...

Interesting.  It is my understaninding the Crump built the course with his own money (or at least a large part of his own money).  If one does this, there is the high probability that a "dictator" will emerge regarding the course.  If this "dictator" takes the advice, guidance, and counsel of qualified experts then a true gem could be build as this "dictator" won't have to deal with egos, placating people, etc.  He can simply listen to the experts, pick and choose what works, and go with it....rather than submit to committee, debate, vote, and all the other stuff that committee's have to go through.

 I suppose that assumes he can make the right decision.  It certainly appears Crump made the correct calls.

Great stuff.

[TEPaul]

Mac:

I just added a lot to #63.


As far as Crump being a "dictator" at or with Pine Valley, that might be one of the most interesting aspects of all about PV.

There is no question at all that he could have been had he wanted to be but it seems like he definitely did not want to be, at least with the club itself. There is no question at all that Crump poured a ton of his own money into that course and club and I suppose in a sense or in some way, at least for some time he probably could be considered to have owned the place. I think he bought Pine Valley with his own money but then others contributed (sort of paid him or the club back as it were). All that type of thing was done with bond offerings and being the type of people those members were most of the time no one really knew who bought the bonds, but the club history and archives suggest in just about every case Crump bought them. So in that sense it was his money but he did also joke that at some point he would simply have a bonfire and just burn all his bonds!

From all indications Crump seems to have been a remarkably kind and perhaps somewhat reserved but extremely definite man (it surely seems that everyone who knew him or met him loved the man). But frankly or in the interest of historical truth there must have been something a bit strange about him for some reason because who from the world he came from would actually go out and basically live in the woods alone all those years as he did with Pine Valley?

So, yes, I think essentially he owned the place and paid for most of what it took to create and develop it but early on he decided that it was just the golf course he wanted to do and concentrate on and he actually refused to be the president of the club or have much to do with its membership drive. That he left to others, primarily the remarkable Howard Perrin Jr who was PV's first president and remained that up until the 1920s when the remarkable PV dictator John Arthur Brown took over and was Pine Valley's president and famous dictator for over 50 years.

[Mac Plumart]

All right guys...we talked about courses as penal, strategic, etc.  And we touched on how members of Oakmont, Pine Valley, etc take offense to being labeled "penal", etc.  As it is probably very much the case that these truly great courses are much more than "penal"...to be great isn't it a given that the course has to have many, many hidden nuances, obvious choices, penal elements, etc.  I haven't played Oakmont or Pine Valley, so correct me if I am wrong...but it simply has to be a true or these courses wouldn't have lasted the test of time.

HOWEVER...there is a hole on my home course that is purely "penal" in my mind.  I can't see it any other way.  Take a peak at this...#3 at St. Ives...565 yard par 5...



hit your driver straight, hit your 2nd, and 3rd (if neccessary) straight, putt and/or chip...done.

If you are right or left at any time...trap. 

Penal, right...no strategy excpet hit it straight. 

[TEPaul]

Mac:

I think far too many make too much of this "penal/strategic" thing.

If you call that hole you showed at St Ives just penal and you'd be fine if you just hit two to three shots on it straight then two putted or chipped and putted you'd be fine I would say if you hit it straight into the middle of every fairway at either Pine Valley or Oakmont and into the middle of every green you'd be fine too even though some of the greens at PV and Oakmont may be a bit more complex and challenging than St. Ives (but I really don't know that because I don't know St Ives).

The big difference between both PV and Oakmont though is if someone is going to hit it crooked at those courses and they tend to be too aggressive with their recovery shots they will probably come out of the day a whole lot worse off than they would if they hit it crooked and go agressive with their recovery shots at St. Ives (out of bunkers or other non-fairway areas).

So what would you call that----PV and Oakmont being more strategic than St. Ives or more penal?

In my opinion, if one considers penal to be basically scoring difficulty for any level of golfer I would say both Pine Valley and Oakmont are probably a ton more penal than St. Ives (again, even though it's hard for me to say because I've never seen St. Ives).

[Sean_A]

I didn't take a detailed look at the posts, but it strikes me that links are sorely under-represented.  I am not sure which ones I would put forward.  Perhaps Muirfield for its revolutionary two loops, one within the other in opposite directions.  Though, I think Stoneham's (Park Jr) routing was done before Muirfield's.  I spose much of the difficulty in deciphering links architectural qualities is that much of what was introduced from inland designs after the start of the heathland movement.  Its difficult to pick a representative few.  Perhaps if we went on the resort theme with the railways as the main source of transport it may be easier to peg it down. 

Ciao

[Mac Plumart]

Sean...

I am so glad you brought that up.  I am putting together the timeline and there is a BIG time gap after, before, and in and around the following courses...

St. Andrews Old and North Berwick...with Royal Calcutta mixed in there and Sunningdale, Huntercombe, Woking.

Gleneagles was mentioned as the first resort course...but I get a 1912 time frame and Pinehurst 1907.

Any enlightenment or added knowledge regarding courses and dates and their breakthroughs would be much appreciated.

Mac

[Sean_A]

Sean...

I am so glad you brought that up.  I am putting together the timeline and there is a BIG time gap after, before, and in and around the following courses...

St. Andrews Old and North Berwick...with Royal Calcutta mixed in there and Sunningdale, Huntercombe, Woking.

Gleneagles was mentioned as the first resort course...but I get a 1912 time frame and Pinehurst 1907.

Any enlightenment or added knowledge regarding courses and dates and their breakthroughs would be much appreciated.

Mac

Woking gets a double mention because when it was built from swampy, woodland ground people thought the initiators were mad.  Of course, Woking also gets the mention for incorporating some bunker design/theory from TOC and re-working its greens at quite an early time - I want to say around 1905.

Ciao

[Mac Plumart]

Well...

Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Golf Courses

St. Andrews (Old)…no concrete evidence details when golf was first played on The Old Course; perhaps 1441, 1552, 1574.  Regardless, it is a timeless gem.

Royal Calcutta...1829…oldest golf course outside the British Isles

North Berwick…1878…first golf course to allow women

The Country Club…1882 (1895?)…first country club

Sunningdale (Old)…1901…one of the first great heathland courses, also the first course to be formed from cleared land and whose course was grown from seed
--It should be mentioned that New Zealand GC was cleared and groomed in 1893
--And Woking was perhaps the first heathlands course 1893
---And Huntercombe was another earlier great heathlands course 1901

Chicago Golf Club, Garden City Golf Club, and Oakmont…1895-1903, represent some of the significant early American golf courses

Pinehurst #2…1907…the first great golf resort

National Golf Links…1911…the first great “template” golf course

Lido…1914…first “mega-expensive” golf development, its disappearance was also significant


1914-1918…World War I


Pine Valley…1918…first great “collaborative” golf course

Pebble Beach…1919…I don’t know why it was groundbreaking, but I am putting it on the list for some unknown reason

Mid-Ocean…1921…first great “tropical” golf course

Yale…1926…first heavy construction golf course

Banff…1928…first great mountain golf course


1929-1932 (1939)…Great Depression


Hirono…1932…first great Japanese golf course

Augusta National…1933…first golf course designed for spectator/tournament golf

Bethpage (Black)...1935…first great municipal golf course


1940-1945…World War II


Peachtree Golf Club…1948…first great RTJ course…big/elongated teeing areas, big greens

Dunes Golf & Beach…1949…first course to use template to aid real estate sales (RTJ)

Desert Forest…1962…first great desert golf course

Victoria Golf Course…1962…first landfill golf course

The Golf Club…1967…minimalist golf course in the era of Maximism

Harbour Town…1967…another counter to RTJ

Alden Pines…1981…first golf course to use salt tolerant seashore paspalum

Shadow Creek…1989…ultimate expression of mans power to create; it is a lush oasis in the middle of desert waste land

Sandhills…1994…minimalist, first “build it and they will come” course

Bandon Dunes Complex…1999…Like Pebble, I can’t come up with why its groundbreaking, but I think it should be on the list

Bayonne…2007…first “great” landfill course…???

Machrihanish Dunes…2009…first minimalist/self-sustaining great course



Thoughts, critiques, comments are welcome.


Should something be removed, should something be added?

I am unfamiliar with salt tolerant seashore paspalum.  Is it worthy of being on the list?  Since it was mentioned, it must be important so it is on the list.  Please advise.

Anyway, thus far…here is what I/we got.

[Ryan Admussen]

Great thread, lots of good information!

[Adam Clayman]

Mac, A couple of thoughts on just a few of the courses and your descriptions.

Desert Forest. While it may be true that it is in the Sonoran Desert, it's quality is not represented by the term "desert golf". An aerial of the course yields quite the interesting dichotomy as to how it plays while on the ground. Same crit of Banff. While it is in the Canadian Rockies, the course is for the most part very walkable and again, not what is typically considered 'moutain golf".

Bayonnes' description has the quotes around the word great. I assume that means you are unsure of that monicker. In a general sense, the term great should be reserved for the 35-50 courses that truly deserve that highest of marks.

Terminology is important and your use of 'minimalism' needs to be be further scrutinized.

As most know, I'm partial to Ballyneal. It's ground breaking on a couple of fronts. One, being the type of golf and golf shots it allows for when playing. Freedom!

Also, Shadow Creek might take a back seat to Lido  as the first  great purely manufactured project.

 

[Mac Plumart]

Adam...

Thanks.

Lido is on the list.  And I did change Shadow Creek's verbage away from the "first" monicker.

You are correct on Bayonne...that is exactly why I used the quotes as I am unsure of its greatness.  Question...to you or anyone who knows; I listed Victoria GC as the first landfill golf course and Bayonne as the first "great" landfill course.  Should I simply take Bayonne off the list or is it worthy of discussion?

I am real comfortable with Desert Forest and 90% comfortable with Banff being on the list.  However, I will certainly listen to all opinions...particularly if somone can articulate why course "X" should be the first mountain mentioned in lieu of Banff (as an example).

Minimialism scrutiny...I am all ears.  I used it in reference to The Golf Club as a term to describe its significance/anti-thesis of RTJ work at the time.  I also used it desribing Sand Hills.  I am not alone regarding either of these.  I also used in with Mach Dunes...I feel real comfortable with that.  And I am in complete agreement with the tone of your question and that is that the definition of these terms is "grey" at times.  I am sincere in my earlier sentence that I am all ears regarding further defining this...making addition to the description, etc.

Should Ballyneal be on the list?  I haven't studied it or played it, so excuse my ignorance on the course and, please, don't take any of my questions as being combatative...as they aren't.   If it should be on the list, why is it groundbreaking or revoltionary?

Thanks for the feeback...It is very much appreciated!

Mac